cwolf20:traylor: No no no, let me explain. These "Halal" burgers must have come from Hungary, where the word "halal" means "death". Pork or no pork, they are just what their name implies, death burgers. Frankly, those kids are lucky if they are not dead yet.

Monty Python (probably a mangling of scenes, but meh. Haven't seen it in years): "Bring out your dead" "I'm not dead yet"

rev. dave: Those poor children are now condemned to Hell through no fault of their own. Since they never ate pork, how would they be able to tell it was pork?

AFAIK, if someone gives you something saying its Halal, it becomes Halal to you, and if it is not, fault goes to whoever gave it to you. Whoever ate them has no responsibility. Again, AFAIK, only Hindu religion has a different perspective on this. You are doomed even if you eat beef unknowingly. You have not go through a process of repent.

I should have told the story behind that one.I worked in a kosher kitchen when I was in my early 20's, I learned a lot about the rules. Check the salad for bugs, check the eggs for blood, make sure all the utensils were kosherized before bringing them into the kitchen. My supervisor brought a non-kosherized spatula into the kitchen and I called him out on it and he replied " well I guess we just sent them all to hell" so it stuck with me.

Tatsuma:Coming on a Bicycle: Why? Because they insult your invisible sky monster and the stuff he or she supposedly wrote up as a set of rules? Sure, it's a bit screwy of them, but they serve otherwise healthy food.

So it's alright to give product animals to vegans, because fark them and their stupid choices?

Dr Dreidel:Tatsuma: For Judaism I could seriously argue the case successfully. If you read all the halachot that go into the meal, from washing of the hands to how the meal has to be prepared to proper eating to what can be said/done during the meal and finally birkat hamazon, there are literally hundreds of pages covering this in terms of applicable halachot.

The Mishnah Berurah starts by describing how to start your day - wake up, do the dailies, prayers, yadda yadda - down to which arm goes in your shirt first and which you you put on and tie first. I don't know that there's a court in the land that would consider "shoe-wearing" a religious ceremony.

// also, the Ramah probably disagrees anyway// farking Poles

Out of curiosity, why is that level of detail necessary for such a mundane routine in religious doctrine? It had to serve a purpose at some point I assume.

farkeruk:So in which case, it might as well all be dumped, as these things hardly apply to 21st century society. We've solved the problems that God cared about through technology, therefore, God should have turned up and said "about the bacon? go right ahead now".

Indeed. Any sane system of beliefs would say "Hey, our kids have been eating pork for years and no lightning bolts. It's obviously fine after all. Our bad. Someone gimme a bacon sammidge" but instead they just hunker down in more nonsensical outrage.

Religion does have an interesting effect on passing on knowledge. The making of samurai swords is immersed in the Shinto religion. The various prayers and rites involved ensures that complex production procedures are followed each and every time a sword is made.

/the fact that if the customer doesn't like your blade, he could express his displeasure by lopping your head off with it might have contributed to high product quality as well.

Tatsuma:Coming on a Bicycle: Why? Because they insult your invisible sky monster and the stuff he or she supposedly wrote up as a set of rules? Sure, it's a bit screwy of them, but they serve otherwise healthy food.

So it's alright to give product animals to vegans, because fark them and their stupid choices?

Very mature.

More generally, Coming on a Bicycle is stating that intentionally mislabeling food products is acceptable and should not be criminally prohibited.

DeathCipris:Out of curiosity, why is that level of detail necessary for such a mundane routine in religious doctrine? It had to serve a purpose at some point I assume.

I have asked that question many times. The closest thing to a satisfactory answer I've ever gotten was that there has to be SOME way of doing things - some people like the dopamine rush of "doing god's will", so giving them the "approved" method satisfies that need.

It's not a great answer, but for the devout, no guidance would throw a null pointer error.

Tatsuma:Coming on a Bicycle: Why? Because they insult your invisible sky monster and the stuff he or she supposedly wrote up as a set of rules? Sure, it's a bit screwy of them, but they serve otherwise healthy food.

So it's alright to give product animals to vegans, because fark them and their stupid choices?

Very mature.

There's immature, and there's illegal, and there's your own qualifier of certain human beings as being 'the worst types of people'. So you tell me - what's the difference?

Munchkin City Coroner:Sick tag? Really? For some yummy pork getting into their lamb burgers? Did someone take a bite and yell, "Uck! This tastes like pork! I hate pork!"? No! They couldn't tell the difference and I bet they loved those burgers. I don't particularly care for the taste of lamb (a shall we say "down to earth" concern, no worries about only getting 71 virgins in magic happy place), but if it was in a hamburger and I couldn't tell the difference then no harm, no foul. Put lambs in there, sloths, carp, anchovies, orangutans, breakfast cereals, fruit bats, whatever. If there is no health risk and it tastes good then there is no problem. Just enjoy your burger.

rebelyell2006:iwatts: Tatsuma: People who do these kinds of things (usually for profits) are the worst type of people.

Because the people who ate the burgers got sick? Were endangered in any way?

The lambburgers were not actually lambburgers. Which is fraud if it was intentional.

Yeah..... I get that part.

Personally, I'd reserve the "worst type of people" label for those who harm people. Such as those that knowingly serve e-coli tainted burgers. Burgers that cause no harm, other than violate some sort of Islamic or Judaic religious custom that actually predates both religions (ancient Egypt)? No. Not the "worst".

Dimensio:Tatsuma: Coming on a Bicycle: Why? Because they insult your invisible sky monster and the stuff he or she supposedly wrote up as a set of rules? Sure, it's a bit screwy of them, but they serve otherwise healthy food.

So it's alright to give product animals to vegans, because fark them and their stupid choices?

Very mature.

More generally, Coming on a Bicycle is stating that intentionally mislabeling food products is acceptable and should not be criminally prohibited.

No, it's not acceptable. It's - in this case - just not as bad as it seems. It's worthy of a fine, and a heavy one if a lot of profit was generated from it, but it's certainly not worthy of all the religious angst.

special20:Tatsuma: Coming on a Bicycle: Why? Because they insult your invisible sky monster and the stuff he or she supposedly wrote up as a set of rules? Sure, it's a bit screwy of them, but they serve otherwise healthy food.

So it's alright to give product animals to vegans, because fark them and their stupid choices?

Very mature.

But bring vegan is a choice. Not dogma.

Strict adherence to religion is also a "choice", as is being an asshat and serving/selling someone a product that goes against their beliefs.

Dr Dreidel:I have asked that question many times. The closest thing to a satisfactory answer I've ever gotten was that there has to be SOME way of doing things - some people like the dopamine rush of "doing god's will", so giving them the "approved" method satisfies that need.

There are also issues of power here. When you have hundreds of pages of abstruse rules about how to make and eat a meal, for example, you are handing immense power to those who (claim to) understand and interpret those rules. It's not that long since Kirk sessions (parish councils) could have you chained up outside the church in Scotland for breaking one of the petty rules which Calvinism adores. Look also at the power exerted over generally less observant societies by the religious hardliners in Iran and Israel.

Dr Dreidel:Tatsuma: rev. dave: but unless it is related to religious ceremony,

For both Muslim and Jews, eating a meal is a religious ceremony

I'd actually be interested to see if that holds up as a legal argument. After all, doesn't the Tanya say that EVERYTHING can be elevated to the level of "religious ceremony"?

There is ceremony (or really, observance - "grace") at every meal, yeah, but it's kind of a stretch to call handwashing and birkat hamazon (grace before/after meals) a ceremony. Friday/Saturday/holiday meals are a different beast (because of the tradition to specifically have 3 meals, the pomp of kiddush, etc).

// do Muslims have b'dieved (accidental transgression) clauses?

Yeah, we do.Quran 6:54: "Peace be on you!Your Lord had inscribed for Himself (the rule of) Mercy.Verily if any of you did evil in ignorance,and thereafter repented and amended (his conduct),Lo! He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

I had an extended stay in the hospital a while back and one day the special in the cafeteria was curried pork. I thought it was about the most unlikely dish I'd ever seen. My fellow loonies er, I mean inpatients didn't understand why I thought it was funny.

Notabunny:Tatsuma: People who do these kinds of things (usually for profits) are the worst type of people.

It's hard to imagine how this could be a mistake. It's easy to imagine how this was done to increase profit. And knowing the meat was going to be labeled halal, it's also easy to imagine this being done out of hate.

Dr Dreidel:DeathCipris: Out of curiosity, why is that level of detail necessary for such a mundane routine in religious doctrine? It had to serve a purpose at some point I assume.

I have asked that question many times. The closest thing to a satisfactory answer I've ever gotten was that there has to be SOME way of doing things - some people like the dopamine rush of "doing god's will", so giving them the "approved" method satisfies that need.

It's not a great answer, but for the devout, no guidance would throw a null pointer error.

That's...troubling that people were/are that inept they can't figure out simple tasks without divine instruction.The "God High" as I am calling it, makes more sense than people just being that friggen clueless. But hey, as long as their respective deity is telling them how to put on their underwear as opposed to kill the unbelievers, no problem here.

Lucky LaRue:I hope the people that are manufacturing and producing these burgers get their asses handed to them.

Hahahahaha. Won't happen. How are you going to sue somebody for putting pork in hamburgers? You'd have a better chance at winning your loser lottery if it turned out to be beef or some kind of tofu crap.

I am genuinely curious about the Muslim stance on Aardvark meat because I happening to be sitting on a lot of it and have few salable recourses. Some call it ground-pig.... whatever it is actually quite tasty pan fried..

Big_Fat_Liar:Lucky LaRue: I hope the people that are manufacturing and producing these burgers get their asses handed to them.

Hahahahaha. Won't happen. How are you going to sue somebody for putting pork in hamburgers? You'd have a better chance at winning your loser lottery if it turned out to be beef or some kind of tofu crap.

Dimensio:Munchkin City Coroner: Sick tag? Really? For some yummy pork getting into their lamb burgers? Did someone take a bite and yell, "Uck! This tastes like pork! I hate pork!"? No! They couldn't tell the difference and I bet they loved those burgers. I don't particularly care for the taste of lamb (a shall we say "down to earth" concern, no worries about only getting 71 virgins in magic happy place), but if it was in a hamburger and I couldn't tell the difference then no harm, no foul. Put lambs in there, sloths, carp, anchovies, orangutans, breakfast cereals, fruit bats, whatever. If there is no health risk and it tastes good then there is no problem. Just enjoy your burger.

farkeruk:Nattering Nabob: There is a scientific basis. Clean meats are at the bottom of the food chain and don't carry as many diseases. Beef, lamb, goat, etc can be cooked to a much lower temp since they don't and have a MUCH lower risk of making people sick

But none of these religions forbid eating chicken, despite chicken carrying salmonella that is far more likely to make you sick than pork.

We have caused many disease problems. "Clean" fowl in the wild do not have the problems we do in raising mass quantities of edible(?) animals. Feeding chickens meat and mishandling them in the killing/ cleaning process cause the problems. Same with Mad Cow. They were feeding cows feed that included ground up cows including brains.

Nattering Nabob:There is a scientific basis. Clean meats are at the bottom of the food chain and don't carry as many diseases. Beef, lamb, goat, etc can be cooked to a much lower temp since they don't and have a MUCH lower risk of making people sick.

That doesn't make any sense.

Herd animals are far, far more likely to have communicable diseases since germs love large numbers of potential victims in close proximity. And any diseases prey have would die out once their flesh was digested by the predators. The preys' viruses and bacteria dont just hang out inside the predator waiting to infect the next step up on the food chain.

Furthermore, look at seafood, where we tend to eat the larger predator species.Bluefin Tuna.Apex predator.Frequently consumed RAW by the most long-lived ethnic group on the planet.

The only issue with eating apex predators nowadays is rhe problem of toxin concentrations, but this problem DID NOT EXIST YET when the religious dietary rules were being put in place.